feast, though the most specified in detail of any, are yet specified only in part, and for the sake of such circumstances, however beautiful or interesting in themselves, as yet transpired only upon that part: and the same thing is true of the account of the next day's proceedings also-to which we must now pass.

The note of time, viii. 2. renders it certain that the history of another day begins to be there recorded; and viii. 1. that it begins to be recorded in direct continuation of the preceding. As that day, then, was the twenty-first, this must have been the twenty-second, of Tisri; and the twentysecond of Tisri, whensoever it fell, was by appointment an extraordinary sabbath. ̓Ανίενται ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου κατὰ τὴν ỏydóŋv hμépavг. It was, also, as the Rabbinical writers denominate it, the clausula, or closing day, of the feast; that is, a kind of supernumerary to the rest, and in some sense a restauration of the solemnity afresh s. The same note of time, oppou de máλ, fixes the period of the return on this day to the period of pì, or even an earlier period stillsuch also as appears on other occasions to have been our Saviour's rule in this respect '.

The event, therefore, which is next related, viii. 3—11. not only is consecutively related, but, from the nature of the fact itself, was such as must have happened early. The adulteress was brought before Jesus, as recently surprized, and in the very act—κατελήφθη, ἐπ ̓ αὐτοφώρῳ, μοιχευομένη She hath been detected, in the very act, committing adul tery. If, then, she had been just detected, and in the act, the act had just been committed; and if she was detected in the act, and brought as soon as detected, she must have been brought early in the morning. Such an act was not likely to have been surprized in the day-time.

It is of the more importance to mark this conclusion, because at viii. 12. when the preceding transaction was now over, and our Lord had resumed his teaching, there is an evident and striking allusion, either to the rising of the sun,

Ant. Jud. iii. x. 4. Jug. x. 5.

* Matt. xxi. 18.

* Num. xxix. 35-38. Maimon. De Sacrific. Mark xi. 20. Luke xxi. 38.

which would take place at the proper hour of pai, or to the trimming of the sacred lamps, which synchronized with the time of morning sacrifice-or perhaps to both—for the time of both would be the same, and as nearly coincident as possible. This allusion is established not merely by the consideration of the circumstances of time and place, and the well-known principle of our Saviour's usage, but by the exception of the Pharisees, against the declaration itselft: for this exception implies that there was something in the declaration, more solemn and more emphatic than usual.

The series of conversations, now begun, will consequently proceed from the hour of pwt—and down to viii. 59. the time of our Lord's departure from the temple, produced by the attempt to stone him, it is so connected by its proper notes of sequence and coherency, that it must have proceeded consecutively. I can discover no point in the whole detail, where it is possible to imagine a pause, except perhaps viii. 20; because the subject of discourse, though afterwards continuing the same, or passing gradually from one associated topic to another, is yet there perceptibly changed from what it was before. But though such a pause had taken place here, there is no reason to suppose it would be a pause of any long continuance, or that the sequel of the discourse to viii. 59. did not take place consecutively, and on the same spot with viii. 12-19.

This appears, first, from viii. 40. νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖ val, which implies a reference to viii. 20. where such a purpose is plainly recognized-and, secondly, from viii. 59. ἐκρύβη, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν. He first became invisible, then passed through the midst of them, and so went out of the temple. For he was previously surrounded by the people in the treasury—and the treasury lay in the women's court-and the women's court was the second of the courts of the temple. The woman taken in adultery must have been brought to him there; for, we may presume, she could be brought to him in none but her own court. Our Lord, therefore, had continued in

t viii. 13.

one place, since viii. 2. to the time of viii. 59. The period of this final departure, it may consequently be justly supposed, would not be much later than the beginning of morning service; that is, it would be about the second or third hour of the day. It followed immediately on viii. 58. when the Jews first took up stones; and it was produced by the necessity of a hasty retreat.

Now the narrative goes on to say, He went out of the temple, and so passed upon his way-and as he was passing he saw a man, blind from his birth"; the natural inference from which words is that the observation of this blind man, and the miracle which ensued upon it, both followed directly upon the departure from the temple-and therefore both happened the same day. It is highly inconsistent to suppose that the Evangelist means Jesus went out of the temple, and so passed on, one day, and observed, and healed, the blind man, another-not that he did both the same day, and as he was passing on the same occasion. Now Acts iii. 2. supplies a case in point to prove that such, as from bodily infirmities of any kind were obliged to depend upon charity, resorted to the gates or the avenues of the temple and resorted thither at the times of prayer in particular. This man was evidently an object of the former description, and known for such-who was accustomed to resort and to sit somewhere, begging-and the time, when Jesus left the temple, was, as we have supposed, about the middle of morning prayer. It is highly probable, then, that the blind man had been brought, that very morning, to some one of the approaches to the temple, since our Lord first went in; and was accordingly discovered there by him, upon his again coming out.

This discovery was followed by his cure-and that cure was wrought upon a sabbath day w. But there is no reason to suppose this means the ordinary sabbath-the absence of the article would rather imply it was a sabbath, not the sabbath. The 22d of Tisri would always be a sabbath, on

whatever day of the week it might fall; but it could not be the sabbath unless it fell on the seventh and though this might sometimes happen, yet it was not the case in the present instance. For A. U. 782. A. D. 29. when Nisan 15. fell upon April 17. and April 17. on Tuesday, Tisri 15. would fall on October 11. and October 11. according to the Tables, on Tuesday-but according to my own mode of reckoning the days of the week, on Thursday. Upon this principle the tenth of Tisri would answer to October 6. and October 6. to Saturday—the nineteenth would answer to October 15. and October 15. to Monday-the twentysecond would answer to October 18. and October 18. to Thursday. We began the detail of the course of events, as we assumed, with Tisri 19. and we have conducted it down, as we assume also, to Tisri 22; that is, from Monday October 15. to Thursday October 18. in the last year of our Saviour's ministry. And that the 15th or 22d of Tisri this year did actually fall on the Thursday is proved by the fact that the 15th of Nisan the next year (which was the year of our Saviour's passion) actually fell on the Saturday. The next year was not intercalated-therefore, from the 15th of Tisri exclusive to the 15th of Nisan inclusive the number of days was 177: or 25 weeks, and two days over. Hence if the 15th of Tisri had fallen on Thursday, the 15th of Nisan would fall on Saturday: and vice versâ, if the 15th of Nisan fell on Saturday, the 15th of Tisri must have fallen on Thursday. Now the 15th of Nisan did fall on Saturday: therefore the 15th of Tisri must have fallen on Thursday*.

Meanwhile it is no difficulty, even on the supposition of a sabbath, that the woman, taken in adultery, had been brought to our Lord the same morning-nor that the Jews

*The 15th of Nisan A. U. 783. A. D. 30. coincided with April 6 and from October 11. exclusive to April 6. inclusive the interval is 177. Hence if October 11. was Thursday, April 6. would be Saturday; and if April 6. was Saturday, October 11. must have been Thursday.

had attempted to stone him. The object in bringing the woman was insidious; and might be twofold, according to the event. If our Saviour had condemned the woman, he might be said both to have usurped a civil jurisdiction, and to have sanctioned a breach of the sabbath; and if he had refused to condemn her, he might be said to have countenanced the crime of adultery. And as to the attempt at stoning-it was the effect of a zeal, as they conceived, for God, and to resent the crime of blasphemy—a crime, which the law required to be punished at any time, and in any place, on the spot *: Περὶ μὲν γὰρ γονέων ἀδικίας, ἢ τῆς εἰς τὸν Θεὸν ἀσεβείας, κἂν μέλλῃ τις, εὐθέως ἀπόλλυται Υ.

With respect to the sequel of the chapter, and especially from ix. 13. and forward, the scrutiny, produced by the miracle, as arising out of the notice attracted by the miracle, it is reasonable to conclude, would follow not long after it, and, consequently, in the course of the same day. The miracle was performed so early in the morning, that there was abundance of time for this purpose: nor does it constitute any difficulty, that the miracle was wrought on a sabbath. If it was wrought thus early on the sabbath, and yet was not enquired into, in the course of the sabbath, either it attracted no notice, as soon as it was performed, (which would be palpably at variance with the fact,) or though it might have attracted notice on the sabbath, no body thought of enquiring into it on the sabbath. But such an enquiry would have been no breach of the sabbath -for it was not a formal act, instituted by order of the Sanhedrim, nor directed to any judicial, or legal, purpose, but the natural result of circumstances, and intended merely to ascertain the truth of the miracle. The man was conducted by those, who had known him before, to the Jewish authorities, of their own accord. A question, concerning the breach of the sabbath, did certainly arise out of it; but that would be rather an argument that the investigation took place on the sabbath-the 22d of Tisri-a day of holy